Sign up for our daily briefing

Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa Bay news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Charlotte news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Illustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

The Affordable Care Act’s fate will still be up for grabs in the courts well after the 2020 election, thanks to a decision last night from a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Driving the news: In a 2-1 ruling, the panel said the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional. But the court declined to say how much of the rest of the law should fall along with it, instead punting that question back to a lower court to reconsider.

The backstory: Judge Reed O’Connor ruled last year that the individual mandate became unconstitutional in 2017, after Congress zeroed out the penalty for being uninsured.

  • He said the entire ACA was bound up with the mandate, and thus the whole law was unconstitutional.
  • Democrats appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit.

After attending the 5th Circuit’s oral arguments in this case over the summer, my sense was that the panel’s two conservative judges very much wanted to rule against the ACA, and that the mandate was probably doomed — but that they were spooked by the full implications of striking down the entire law.

  • That comports pretty well with that they decided last night.
  • The court said O’Connor’s ruling “does not explain with precision” why certain provisions of the ACA couldn’t survive, and instructed him “to employ a finer-toothed comb … and conduct a more searching inquiry.”

Between the lines: In throwing out the entire ACA, O’Connor relied heavily on the way Congress described the mandate in 2010, when it was described as “essential” to many other reforms.

  • But he largely ignored the fact that, in 2017, Congress severed the mandate from the rest of the law. That should be a pretty clear sign that Congress considers it to be severable, the ACA’s allies argue. And the 5th Circuit agreed that O’Connor had given too little weight to more recent history.

The big picture: This case is basically right back where it started. You can assume the mandate is a goner. The real question is about the rest of the law. And it’s working its way toward the Supreme Court.

  • Last night’s ruling simply bought a little extra time, keeping it off the high court’s docket in the middle of an election year.

What’s next: The same three outcomes are on the table: O’Connor could rule that, actually, on second thought, the mandate can fall by itself. Because it’s already not in effect, that wouldn’t have a huge practical impact.

  • Or he could strike down the mandate plus the law’s protections for pre-existing conditions, or come back and strike down the whole thing again.
  • Either of those rulings would reignite a national political firestorm as well as appeals that would likely end at the Supreme Court, sometime in 2021.

Go deeper

The rebellion against Silicon Valley (the place)

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Smith Collection/Gado via Getty Images

Silicon Valley may be a "state of mind," but it's also very much a real enclave in Northern California. Now, a growing faction of the tech industry is boycotting it.

Why it matters: The Bay Area is facing for the first time the prospect of losing its crown as the top destination for tech workers and startups — which could have an economic impact on the region and force it to reckon with its local issues.

Erica Pandey, author of @Work
1 hour ago - Economy & Business

Telework's tax mess

Illustration: Annelise Capossela/Axios

As teleworkers flit from city to city, they're creating a huge tax mess.

Why it matters: Our tax laws aren't built for telecommuting, and this new way of working could have dire implications for city and state budgets.

Wanted: New media bosses, everywhere

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Reuters, HuffPost and Wired are all looking for new editors. Soon, The New York Times will be too.

Why it matters: The new hires will reflect a new generation — one that's addicted to technology, demands accountability and expects diversity to be a priority.